- Liittynyt
- 16.10.2016
- Viestejä
- 18 984
Artikkeli siitä miten merkittävin Ivermectiä puoltanut tieteellinen artikkeli on todennäköisesti yksi helvetin iso huijaus:
gidmk.medium.com
Eli artikkelista löytyy introductionista suoraa copy-pastea ja siitä homma menee vain pahemmaksi kun tutkitaan alla olevaa dataa.
Sitten kerta kyseinen tutkimus oli otokseltaan suht suuri, se myös sotkee kaikki metatutkimukset missä sitä on käytetty.
Tässä vielä toinen artikkeli aiheesta missä käydään myös samoja asioita läpi ja mainitaan että se tutkimus on vedetty pois ja Egyptin hallitus tutkii huijausta:
grftr.news
Is Ivermectin for Covid-19 Based on Fraudulent Research?
A tale of what could be, if true, the most consequential medical fraud ever committed
Eli artikkelista löytyy introductionista suoraa copy-pastea ja siitä homma menee vain pahemmaksi kun tutkitaan alla olevaa dataa.
For example, there are numbers that are incredibly unlikely, verging on impossible. In table 4, the study shows mean, standard deviation, and ranges for recovery time in patients within the study. The issue is that with a reported range of 9–25 days, a mean of 18 and a standard deviation of 8 there are very few configurations of numbers that would leave you with this result. You can even calculate this yourself using the SPRITE tool developed by the clever fraud detectives James Heathers, Nick Brown, Jordan Anaya, and Tim Van Der Zee — to have a mean of 18 days consistent with the other values, the majority of the patients in this group would have to have stayed in the hospital for either 9 or 25 days exactly. Now that might not be entirely impossible, but it’s so odd that it raises very serious questions about the results of the trial itself.
For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19 were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their patients. Unless they were getting dead people to consent to participate in the trial, that’s not really possible.
Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud. Even worse, if you look at the values for different patients, it appears that most of group 4 are simply clones of each other, with the same or largely similar initials, comorbidities, lymphocyte scores, etc.
Sitten kerta kyseinen tutkimus oli otokseltaan suht suuri, se myös sotkee kaikki metatutkimukset missä sitä on käytetty.
The problem is, if you look at those large, aggregate models, and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses almost all of its purported benefit. Take the recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al. that has been all over the news — they found a 62% reduction in risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin compared to controls when combining randomized trials.
However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide.
Tässä vielä toinen artikkeli aiheesta missä käydään myös samoja asioita läpi ja mainitaan että se tutkimus on vedetty pois ja Egyptin hallitus tutkii huijausta:
Why Was a Major Study on Ivermectin for COVID-19 Just Retracted? - Grftr News
Questions about major lapses of scientific integrity led to the withdrawal of a study that formed a critical component of the pro-ivermectin case.
grftr.news


